You obviously have no clue as to the problems and difficulties caused by Apple switch to Intel chips and the required conversion to Xcode from CodeWarrior, so it's doubtful that there's anything anybody could do to explain it to you.

This makes 3 really major changes that Apple has required of their developers (and that includes a lot more developers than just Adobe). 68K to PPC, System 9 to OS X and now PPC to MacIntel. Apple doesn't make developer's lives easy...CodeWarrior was end of lifed at version 10 after Apple switched to Intel and Xcode, the compiler required to do Universal Binary versions of software was at version 2.0. It was incapable of handling an application like Photoshop's 4 million + lines of code.

So, according to YOU, what should Adobe have done? Gone out and written a compiler? I don't think so...even now, Xcode is finally at version 3.0 and just barely (and I mean BARELY) able to handle a project like Photoshop. But Adobe has to do UB versions of not only Photoshop but Illustrator, and InDesign not to mention the new apps from Macromedia...so Adobe stated that it would be until Q2, 2007 before all their apps would be released as UB versions. About 24 months after Photoshop CS2 was released...which is about 6 months longer than the normal dev cycle.

Yes, it's a shame that it will take that long...but who is really to blame? You choose only to blame Adobe and you lay it all on their doorstep. That is very narrow minded and actually pretty far south of accurate.

If you really want to know the "cause" it was IBM's unwillingness to continue developing G5 and G6 chips for Apple that led to Apple move to Intel. FreeScale, which was making the G4's for laptops quit making them-that's what caused Apple to release the MacBook Pros so early. As to the current situation with the pro towers, in less than a year there will be a UB version of Photoshop, so in the intrem, yes, it's tough on pro users.

You can cut off your nose to spite your face if you want to...fact is that Adobe is doing the right thing...tthey are developing on THIER development schedule, not Apple's. They are taking their time to do the compilers switch correctly as apposed to jumping in and doing a half ass job. They did the same thing with Photoshop 7 which was the first version to run native on OS X.

You can also go off and do an Adobe boycott if you want...but that's really pretty stupid because all the other developers out there are also having their problems dealing with a switch to MacIntel...except for those developers that only develop for Windowss.

Hey, here's an idea, why not switch to Windows XP and run it via Bootcamp...Apple makes very fast Windows boxes...

Nope, sorry. . .I find your attitude really rather ignorant of the facts and the realities...

You obviously have no clue as to the problems and difficulties caused by Apple switch to Intel chips...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=79510\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, nor have I, and I won´t pretend so. I´m still on G5´s and G4´s; I use PSCS2 and Lightroom. I plan no boycott in the future either; I´ll probably upgrade PS and my hardware at the same time, if they´re both ready for each other.

Still, I think Adobe sorta asked for reactions like this: 2 years ago, when Steve Jobs publicly announced the switch to Intel, one of the Adobe top brass (I don´t recall his name) was invited on stage, and his final words were "What took you so long?"

It seems Adobe might well have some good excuses for the delay. Just possibly, their public image would be improved more if they did not use the language of a drill sergeant when explaining them...

Still, I think Adobe sorta asked for reactions like this: 2 years ago, when Steve Jobs publicly announced the switch to Intel, one of the Adobe top brass (I don´t recall his name) was invited on stage, and his final words were "What took you so long?"[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, that's where you are wrong...it was only one year and a couple of months ago that Steve Jobs got on stage and said that magic word INTEL. It was June 6, 2005 at the Apple Dev Conference and yes, it was Adobe CEO Bruce Chizen who stood on stage with Jobs and committed to Apple users that Adobe would support the MacIntel. But Bruce is a suit, not an engineer and when Adobe got over the shock and actually looked into Xcode (which Adobe had never used) they found an immature and very preliminary code compiler.

If you want an engieer's point of view, read what Photoshop co-architect Scott Byer had to say [a href=\"http://blogs.adobe.com/scottbyer/2006/03/macintosh_and_t.html]HERE[/url]. Scott got a alot of flack for writting what he thought was the truth but he did recieve support from an unusual source-Apple application engineers that were facing the same problems converting over to a new and under-powered Xcode.

No, changing from a version 10 CodeWarrior to an new and very preliminary Xcode 2 was a MAJOR effort. And, even Apple app engineers had problems...

Well, that's where you are wrong...it was only one year and a couple of months ago that Steve Jobs got on stage and said that magic word INTEL. It was June 6, 2005...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=79553\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

OK, I stand corrected; thought it was longer (I´ve reached an age where one more often underestimates past time periods... ).

Still, suit or engineer, Adobe top brass it was, and the ignorant public (of which I am one) might be forgiven if we imagined Adobe on its toes to "Intellify" their whole line, pronto. While I´m a rather complacent person, it is obvious that some people ARE rather miffed, and I still think it is Adobe´s responsibility (and very much in Adobe´s interest) to clarify the present situation as they see it, and to clarify it in an objective and well documented way.

And Jeff, while your latest post in this thread does exactly that (and thank you for these interesting links), honestly your first answer did not. The rather provocative tone the topic starter chose to use is his problem; the best way to deal with it would be to keep calm and state the facts. And that´s what you did in your second post.

I wouldn't blame Apple; they're advancing the platform and that's a good thing. Their constant push to make the Mac platform as good as it can be technologically is what makes it such a great system.

Where does the blame for Christer's (and others in the same boat) issue really lie? Perhaps some personal responsibility is in order. Is it really Apples or Adobe's fault someone bought a computer that doesn't fit their needs yet?

I'm in that same boat but, the difference is I planned ahead. I saw the announcement but bought a G5 PowerMac that would suit my needs until all the cards were in place for a UB PS CS3 and Intel towers. My G5 is slower than the Current Intels, but not that much slower. The benefit to this approach is that I get to use PS natively and by the time it's due for an upgrade, I'll be able to buy a computer that will be significantly faster (I have little doubt there will be eight cores by then) than what I have now and an UB version of PS. In addition, the system should be more reliable since by that point they will be at revision B or C and all or at least most hardware kinks will have been worked out.

Naw, if you bought a computer that doesn't run the software you depend upon properly and that bothers you, you have no one to blame but yourself. Everyone is responsible for their own purchasing decisions and for doing the proper research before making the purchase.

For what it is worth - I've been on the code writing end - I do know and understand what it takes - BUT - Adobe has had several years to do fix Photoshop - Apple worked on the Intel switch for about 5 years before they changed processor - and - Adobe was informed about this along the line - I don't have the exact date - but it WAS well before Apple went Intel.

To write a Universal application would not take all teh resources Adobe has - and if they had worked on it concurrently with Lightroom - they would have had a universal version some time ago - instead they are unhappy with Apple's forey into what they see as THEIR market with Aperture - and are "punishing" Apple for it - and while doing so is pissing off a legion of Photoshop users...

FYI I have - actually HAD a G5 - however that went down the tube with Katrina - and I choose not to buy a machine that I knew would be "behind" the curve - instead I bought a used G4 Box cheap, still have my 15" Powerbook which was with me on the road when Katrina hit - and now also a brand new 17 macBook Pro..

And, yes - I am smart enough to know that I can run the windows version if I so care - which I don't - OK?

According to mr Shewe - who seem to be very, very informed - obviously has an inside source somewhere - Adobe has had at least since sometime in 2005 to deal with this - and it is now something like what - at least a year and more later - and the word is MAY 2007 - oh sure - that's only TWO years to do something about it - they are getting right up there with Microsoft..

For what it is worth - I've been on the code writing end - I do know and understand what it takes - BUT - Adobe has had several years to do fix Photoshop - Apple worked on the Intel switch for about 5 years before they changed processor - and - Adobe was informed about this along the line - I don't have the exact date - but it WAS well before Apple went Intel.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80041\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Uh no. . .you are wrong. Adobe found out the Friday afternoon before the Monday, June 6th, 2005 Steve Jobs keynote where Steve stated Apple was switching to Intel. No, Adobe did NOT know before Steve sent a limo on that Fri afternoon to pick up Chizen and deliver him to Apple headquarters to be informed...hell, 98% of Apple didn't even know until that Friday, the weekend before the conference.

By my count that's 16 months...that's a far cry from "several years" as you state...

And, at that keynote, Steve Jobs said:

“Starting next year (2006), we will introduce Macs with Intel processors,” said Jobs. “This time next year, we plan to ship Macs with Intel processors (June 2006). In two years, our plan is that the transition will be mostly complete, and will be complete by end of 2007.”

That's what he said and that's what Adobe planned on...it wasn't Adobe's fault Apple had to move up the transition because FreeScale quit making G4 chips ad IBM told Apple to take a flying leap...

Quote

To write a Universal application would not take all teh resources Adobe has - and if they had worked on it concurrently with Lightroom - they would have had a universal version some time ago - instead they are unhappy with Apple's forey into what they see as THEIR market with Aperture - and are "punishing" Apple for it - and while doing so is pissing off a legion of Photoshop users...

That's pure crap...that's totally ignoring the fact that Xcode simply was not up to the task. And it has nothing to do with Lightroom since that was a Cocco app compiled on Xcode from the begining.

Adobe and Apple BOTH started developing their "apps for photographers" in early 2003-WELL BEFORE any of this ever got off the ground-except for Apple writting and compiling OS X is secret, to run on Intel-something the industry had no idea Apple was doing. That was a total shock.

Quote

According to mr Shewe - who seem to be very, very informed - obviously has an inside source somewhere - Adobe has had at least since sometime in 2005 to deal with this - and it is now something like what - at least a year and more later - and the word is MAY 2007 - oh sure - that's only TWO years to do something about it - they are getting right up there with Microsoft..

Uh, yes. . .I do have a source or two at Adobe and Apple as well. What's your point?

No. . .Adobe has had since LAST SUMMER to work on a UB version of Photoshop. . .which they couldn't even begin until Apple hit 2.14 with Xcode (go ask Apple why that was-they know).

Adobe made a plan, Apple changed the time frame. Adobe was right in the middle of a merger with Macromedia and Apple decides to switch to Intel. And YOU think Adobe is dissing their customers (well you) and you're pissed. . .well, imagine how Adobe feels.

All angry, embittered responses (from anyone on anyside of the issue) aside perhaps there is a deeper issue here? I've heard sentiment similar to this from many sources. Regardless of if its about photoshop, lightroom, whatever, people are getting fed up with Adobe for one reason or another.

Me? Not really. I may not be thrilled with them, but their products have served me well (other than the prices, thank goodness for educational discounts)

I think its simply the fact that there really isn't all that much in terms of competition to Photoshop. Yes, there are other converters, other organizers, other exposure tools, but nothing as comphrensive or as powerful for such a wide range of people. Photoshop is in many ways a darn near monopoly, and that draws ire. People hate being dependent on something without any real option otherwise.

I think its simply the fact that there really isn't all that much in terms of competition to Photoshop. Yes, there are other converters, other organizers, other exposure tools, but nothing as comphrensive or as powerful for such a wide range of people. Photoshop is in many ways a darn near monopoly, and that draws ire. People hate being dependent on something without any real option otherwise.

At least I do...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80054\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Photoshop is no where near a monopoly unless you want to change the definition of monopoly to "the most successful product." PS is where it's at because no one has yet to release something that can compete on the same level. There are choices other than PS on several fronts thus negating any resemblance to Adobe being a monopoly. A monopoly exists only when there is no choice in a market. If you or anyone else thinks there is no choice other than Adobe, then you haven't really looked.

You are right though that Adobe's success draws ire. It seems to be human nature to distrust/dislike/whine about/etc a large successful company. It's rarely logical.

Photoshop is no where near a monopoly unless you want to change the definition of monopoly to "the most successful product." PS is where it's at because no one has yet to release something that can compete on the same level. There are choices other than PS on several fronts thus negating any resemblance to Adobe being a monopoly. A monopoly exists only when there is no choice in a market. If you or anyone else thinks there is no choice other than Adobe, then you haven't really looked.

You are right though that Adobe's success draws ire. It seems to be human nature to distrust/dislike/whine about/etc a large successful company. It's rarely logical.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80096\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

61Dynamic, notice I went out of my way to say that PS ISN'T a monopoly. You are exactly right when you say that it is "the most successful product", and, " PS is where it's at because no one has yet to release something that can compete on the same level." That is my point, not that it is a total monopoly, but that because of its success and hold on the market for many user it might as well be. Does that clarify what I meant, sorry about the confusion?

I agree with many of the sentiments expressing the opinion that Adobe Photoshop is not perfect. I know nothing of the real internal workings of code so I cannot comment on what might be possible. I can however logically conclude that if something were simple to solve, the economic advantage of doing so would cause it to occur. Coming from a graphic arts background which includes photography I think Adobe should be given a great deal more credit than it has been given. The have originated several very valuable file formats without restricting public access ( Tiff, PDF, PSD, DNG) which have made global communication for artists & photographers reliable and easier and have maintained a long term commitment to the professional community. The marriage of major programs into the creative suite for instance has made my life as a professional artist more efficient and more productive. PDF conversion makes providing accurate printing more reliable for myself and my clients. No major software company that I know of has made a serious attempt to provide a universal raw format openly available. Ecomonically, Adobe has put alot of money where its mouth is. I have gone through a significant number of alternate software packages that have not upheld their intial commitment to their market. Adobe has an exemplary secondary support structure of forums, resources and feedback. Each of us as individuals have very unique needs at times. I think it unreasonable to expect anyone to cater to every need. There maybe an individual program that meets that need better in a particular circumstance, but it won't meet all of your needs either. Maybe there are no serious competors to Adobe simply because no other company is capable of making the type of commitment Adobe has. Adobe has managed to sustain this commitment in a marketplace where piracy alone deteriorates a substantial proportion of its legitimate assets that could be better allocated to developement.

The other problem with Photoshop is the ecosphere. Photoshop may well go UB in May 2007, but what about all the various plug-ins we all rely on. I'm SURE Pixelgenius will be on the ball, but whilst they cater for approx 80% of my plug-in needs these days, I hate to think how I'm going to get a UB version of the Minolta (RIP) DimageScan driver for for my MF film scanner. The problem is that many plug-in developers, even those that are still in business, cannot really start on this stuff for both technical and commercial reasons until at least a stabe Beta of the UB Photoshop is available.

We already had the issue with OS X - Adobe came pretty late with PS 7 (and had other excuses then - doubtless fair, but one does also get the impression that Photoshop's code base has got very close to unmanageable. I suppose shareholder considerations rule out a complete rewrite), but as far as I recall, getting the full quota of plug-ins I need on OS X took about a year longer.

I don't see any point in blaming anybody, although I do think that the premium price of Adobe applications would be better justified if the company was a bit faster in reacting to these situations. Yes, its tough that things change, but guess what, life is full of changes. The attitude that somehow we should be grateful to Adobe irritates me - we pay a lot of money to Adobe to deliver products, not excuses.

The problem is that many plug-in developers, even those that are still in business, cannot really start on this stuff for both technical and commercial reasons until at least a stabe Beta of the UB Photoshop is available.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80196\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes. . .that goes directly to the point that you simply can't rush this stuff!

To run native on Intel, all plug-ins and extensions of that application must also run native. Apple COULD have done something about that and Adobe was petitioning for the ability to allow backwards compatibility for app extensions but Apple chose not to enable that in Xcode/MacIntel.

If you are an ASN member you have the ability to get early access and there's even a Developers Summit this coming Nov to aid developers in the migration.

And yes, as a developer it -IS- a pain in the ass to have to switch from CodeWarrior over to Xcode. PixelGenius is in the same boat as Adobe (even though we are tiny by comparison) and this is also why I fully understand the problems that Apple has caused by requiring Apple developers to make a forced migration to an entirely new environment-THEN- changing the time frame for the migration because Apple had supply problems for older G4 and G5 chips.

Re-read the quote from the Steve Jobs keynote....Apple told developers that they would be shipping MacIntels (the low end machines) by June 2006 and that by June 2007 there would be even more MacIntels and that the transition would be complete by the end of 2007.

That's the END of 2007. Adobe planned the development cycle based upon Steve's statements (and private communications to Adobe) then Apple completely changed the schedule and started shipping lowend MacIntels in Jan 2006 and now, here in Fall 2006, Apple has made the migration of their entire product line.

It simply is not Aodbe's fault that the UB version of Photoshop is not available now. Had Xcode been capable of handling a project of Photoshop's size last year and had Apple stuck to its original plans, Photoshop CS3 (UB version) would have been out BEFORE the migration was finished in the end of 2007.

61Dynamic, notice I went out of my way to say that PS ISN'T a monopoly. You are exactly right when you say that it is "the most successful product", and, " PS is where it's at because no one has yet to release something that can compete on the same level." That is my point, not that it is a total monopoly, but that because of its success and hold on the market for many user it might as well be. Does that clarify what I meant, sorry about the confusion?[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80099\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Saying "like or almost a monopoly" is just as flamboyant as saying it is a monopoly when in fact, it is nothing close. The grossly inaccurate use of the term monopoly is what I was objecting to. I understand what you were saying otherwise and I don't particularly disagree with any of it.

I can't help but think each user must evaluate the situation for himself/herself and choose the right course. Economic Man makes choices that make sense to him. I would love to get an iMac asap, to replace my aging Windows machine. But, I am waiting for Adobe to convert PS to the new Intel Macs and/or for Apeture to have some of the remaining kinks worked out (printing restrictions seeming to be one of the main things). Until then, Apple and Adobe can keep their products and I will keep my money. And stagger along with a slow but adequate Windows/CS 1 combination.

Running out and buying the latest wizz-bang hardware when the software is not there to support one's needs does not make much sense to me. Without software, the latest hardware is just an expensive block.